Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	allegiance_n	law_n	oath_n	1,012	5	7.8657	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85888	A vindication of the Oath of allegiance in ansvver to a paper disperst by Mr Sam: Eaton, pretending to prove the Oath of allegiance voyd, and non-obliging. Wherein his positions against it are examined and confuted. / By the author of the Exercitation concerning usurped powers.	Gee, Edward, 1613-1660.; Hollingworth, Richard, 1607-1656, attributed name.	1650 (1650)	Wing G452; Thomason E593_6; ESTC R202111	38,293	50

service so whether his Master prove good or evill or as it is in a man or womans power to bestow themselves in marriage whether the mate be observant of duty or no. 4. A Conditionall Oath is not consistent with a necessary duty obedience to magistrates is not lesse arbitrary but commanded and that though they be bad but now the duty being necessary if you would have it sworn with a proviso of the Rulers performing his duty you nullifie the end of an Oath which is to confirm put out of doubt and give security of what is due A thing sworn may become due either by the Rule of Equity or by a voluntary Covenant that which is due the later way if the Covenant be conditionall the Oath that is to ratifie it may be also so far conditionall but what is due in the former kind to wit by absolute and unalterable rule or precept of Justice cannot be sworn to conditionally for that would be no ratification to it nay it would be a debilitating and rendering more insecure of that which was simply due without an oath a condition being put into your Oath being a very probable medium to perswade the swearer that he is no otherwaies bound to the things sworn then upon that condition which being broken by the party sworn to he will easily conceive himself altogether free thus the absolute Rule will receive impeachment and not strength in it's obligation by the conditionall Oath such an Oath therefore is in it's end inconsistent with it 2. I come to the lrtter part of his Major which exacteth That the Oath be mutuall or taken both by Ruler and Ruled not single or taken only by the ruled Some explanation of his terms more then is here he might have used for lack whereof I shall as I go observe some difference of sense appliable to his words and so expresse how I deny this branch of his position and why 1. His words sound as if he would have the same Oath to be taken mutually both by Prince and Subjects which if he remember that the Oath spoken of is the oath of a Subjects Allegiance obedience or subjection to be yeelded to his Soveraign and that the King is the person sworn to he will not cannot I suppose own to be his sense 2. But the apter sense and that which I suppose was in his intention is that the Ruler and Subject should each swear to his respective duty the Prince that he will command and govern lawfully the Subject that he will perform all lawfull homage and obedience and to this I say although it be true it in fact in our case that the King hath sworn his duty on his part as well as the Subject doth in this oath swear his yet the Proposition is false in this and it cannot be said that thus it universally ought of necessity to be betwixt every Prince and his Subjects much lesse can it hold that unlesse it be thus mutuall the Subjects oath is not in righteousnesse according to Ier. 4.2 but that for want of this mutuality it it is null for 1. We read of many undoubtedly righteous Oaths in Scripture undertaken in Covenants betwixt man and man wherein one party only sweareth and not both mutually * Gen. 24.2.47 31. Exod. 13.19 Iosh 2.12.9.15.14.9 Iudg. 15.12 1 Sam. 19.6 1 Kings 1.13.29.51 2 Sam. 19.23 Noh 5.12 Ier. 38 10. 2. We find in Scripture Oaths of Allegiance taken by Subjects to their Rulers without the reciprocall swearing of the Rulers to them * 2 Reg. 11.4 Iudg. 11 10. Chron. 36.13 Ezek. 17.3 such was that ingagement Josh 1.16 17 18. 3. Oaths are never to be taken but necessarily that is when not only the matter is of great weight but it cannot otherwise be sufficiently confirmed or assured then by Oath * D. Sanders de Iuram ob pral 7. S. 12. Tholos syntag dur 1.50 c. 3. but in solemne humane Covenants it comes to passe that somtimes the performance lies only on one party the other is to receive advantage but not to do any thing somtimes the danger of breach lies only or more on one part then on another somtimes there is other satisfactory assurance given besides swearing and sometimes there is other remedy if there should be a breach then the forfeiture of an Oath in such and other cases an Oath on the one party may not need and consequently is not be exacted 4 But suppose the case that it be as necessary for security that the King sweare to the people as that they take an Oath to him yet if through over much credulity or otherwise it be that the people do swear and not the Prince this cannot be the least colour for the nullifying of the Peoples Oath for whether the King swear or no that which makes the Oath obliging is that in a just and possible matter promised God is invocated as a witnesse of the promise 3. There is another sense of mutual swearing more strict then the former and that is when not only two parties sweare to each other their respective parts but they both sweare with a mutuall respect that is the obligation of the one party hath a respect to a dependence on the performance of the other party as when one man swears to another to give him so much money for his land that other swears to conveigh to him his land for so much money in this kind a breach of the one is a releasement to the other And here that Adage holds good Frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem As also that Rule of the Law Frustra quis fidem postulat sibi serv●…i ab eo cui fidem à se praestitam servare recusat But this sense 〈…〉 ll swearing cannot come in to be meant in our case For 〈…〉 an oath is plainly conditionall the one party sweares not 〈…〉 the other absolutely and clearly so much money but to give him so much for his land the having of the land then is an expresse condition of his Oath but the Oath of the Subjects Allegiance is granted to be absolute and is as such disputed against by him here and I have above proved an Oath of Allegiance cannot be conditionall 2. The Kings Oath is also absolute and binds without dependence on the Subjects Loyalty no man will say I thinke that the King is discharged from ruling justly and may become an absolute Tyrant if his Subjects exceed the bounds or faile of the bonds of their oath or duty nay if the Subject transgresse his duty the King is bound by his oath to cause justice according to the law and tenour of his oath to be done and cannot otherwise escape violation of his oath 3. Such mutuall oaths are entred into by both parties at the same time and have their mutuall respects expressed but neither doth the King and Subjects sweare to each other at the same time neither is there any such mutuall respect mentioned

or so much as implied in either of their oaths 4. Such mutually respective oaths have only place in matters arbitrary or that are in mens choice to do or not to do untill they bind themselves by Covenant but such are not the relative duties of Kings and Subjects there being a divine Law obliging each to the duties of their offices before they swear We see no sense imaginable of mutuall nor single will fit this mans turne but it will make his Proposition false either predicated of the Oath of Allegiance at all so doth the first and third acception afore-mentioned or if predicated with that modus of a necesse est so doth the third But let us heare his Reasons for this clause of his major whatever be the sense of it It is saith he against equity and reason and the good of the Subject that he should be further or longer bound to the Prince to submit to him then the Prince is bound to the Subject to rule well and administer Justice rightly Grant all this and it will no way follow therefore the Oath of Allegiance to make it righteous must be mutuall in any sense for the Prince may be bound and that as long to his part as the Subject is to his and so he is and it is impossible to be otherwise for Prince and Subject his tie to rule in justice and his to obey in just things are relatives and doe inferre necessarily each other to wit by the tie of Scripture conscience and positive Laws and yet not be sworne at all His major being thus I hope fully refuted I need not to take notice of his consequences as he calls them but in a word I shall touch on them The first is nothing but a hypotheticall repetition of some part of the major Proposition which I have been so long in disproving If the Oath of Allegiance were in judgement and righteousnesse the King was as strongly bound to the Subjects as any of them to him this therefore I passe by as the same that was said before and no consequence from it The second is Then if he break his Oath all the Subjests are absolved if they will This consequence I deny I have I thinke fully made it cleare before that the Oath of Allegiance taken by the Subject is absolute not depending upon any thing to be performed by the King whether sworne or not sworne and that it could not have been otherwise and though the King and people have each sworn their duties mutually See D. Sanders de Iuram oblig Prael 4. S 8. yet not with a mutuall respect by vertue whereof a breach on one side might be a discharge on the other and that neither the tenor of their Oaths hold forth any such thing neither is the matter of them capable thereof being necessary not arbitrary The third is Then at what time the King levied war against his Subjects they were discharged by that breach of Oath in him of their Allegiance This is a consequence of the former consequence and stands or falls with it that therefore being answered and disproved this vanisheth The fourth thing is no consequence but a reason of the two last consequences and in method of arguing is therefore an antecedent to prove them it is thus ellse the whole Parliament and their party were periured persons so many of them as have taken this Oath and are Rebells in taking up Armes against the King 1. If their taking up Arms against the King as he termes it were rebellion their absolution from their Oathes were it so indeed by the Kings breach of his could not unmake or make it no rebellion for the debt of obedience is existent in the Subject before any oath-taking and is not founded on swearing but only confirmed by it and therefore survives after the pretended dissolution of it and consequently makes that taking up arms which would have been if the Oath had not been as he supposeth nullified rebellion neverthelesse 2. We must therefore say as the Parliamentarian party hath believed declared and in many Treatises in print maintained all along the late warrs that the Armes of the Parliament were not against any branch of the Subjects Allegiance or the Oath for it which they professed still to owe persist in yea and in the Act of their Arms-bearing covenanted to yeeld maintain but concordant with the same In as much as they enterprized not against the Kings Person his State or Government they went not against his Majesty his Heirs or Successors they joyned not against his Crown and dignity the rights whereof and the bounds of the Subjects obedience are prefixed by the Laws of the Realm the ultimate interpretation whereof is in the Parliament which declared their arms to be for and agreeable to the Laws The King as King acts only by his Court and Laws what he doth besides or against these is the mans not the Kings acting what is done by Order of the Courts of Justice and by vertue of the Laws is done though against his personall presence or commands yet for the King his Crown and dignity 2. His next exception against the Oath of Allegiance is That it is an unlawfull oath in that it is sworn to the Kings Heirs his reason for this Exception proceeds thus Who knoweth as Eccl. 2.19 whether he will be a wise man or a fool a just or a wicked man and tyrant now if no man know this then to swear to an Heir is not an Oath in iudgement nor is it righteous for the Subject may bind himself to his own hurt yea ruine Consequence Then the Oath of Allegiance was in that branch that respected Heirs an unlawfull Oath c. I admit of the Antecedent but utterly deny the Consequence For the whole Consequence I answer 1. This inference is directly contrary to that which Solomon in the place cited Eccles 2.19 makes from the words Solomons is yet shall he have rule over all my labours wherein I have laboured and wherein I have shewed my self wise under the Sun this mans inference is in effect because no man knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool therefore he shall not have Rule c. that is we must not engage before hand that he shall rule while it is uncertain what he will prove though Solomon saith notwithstanding that is uncertain yet he shall have Rule and so Rehoboam none of the wisest Princes had Rule over Solomons labour yet they that cleaved to him did much better then they that revolted from him and I suppose this gentleman dare not say that an Oath of Allegiance to Solomon and his seed or to Rehoboam himself after the manifestation of his weaknesse was unlawfull 2. The same reason if it held would lie against any Oath or Engagement to any Rulers in being whatsoever they are yea against the new Engagement to the present Government for say that Rulers be come to maturity and for time

the thing sworne which is Obedience or Allegiance to the King thus the Oath must be conditionall not absolute that is the obedience which we bind our selves to must be with limitation and condition restraining it as all obedience to men in any relation is to be to just honest lawfull things or so as to consist with our obedience to God not absolute or illimited in that sense 2. Or in reference to the tie or obligation of the Oath as the qualification thereof and so I say it may be absolute and must not of necessity be conditionall that is the subordinate and limited obedience which is due to the Prince or Magistrate I may swear unto absolutely or without any speciall condition annexed to my Engagement Speciall condition I say for I must once againe distinguish to wit of conditions 1. Some are generall and such as no promissary Oath that is lawfull can be without those are I think all of them reduced to these two heads namely that the thing sworne be honest and possible these conditions are presupposed and not wont to be expressed and notwithstanding the including of them an Oath may be said to be absolute 2. Others are speciall and proper conditions which are ingredients in some Oaths the which by reason of them termed conditionall they are usually either somewhat that is contingent as when a Marchant covenants and swears to give a hundred pounds to another man or to a publike use if his ship that is gone to Sea returne home safe with her Merchandize or that which is arbitrary or in the choice of mans will his commonly to whom the Oath is ingaged as if a Master covenant and swear to maintain his servant with meat drink and such wages if he be a true and diligent servant to him It is not the former but this latter conditionality which he requireth in the Oath of Allegiance to wit that the Subject be only bound to his duty of Allegiance if and so long as the Prince observeth his duty of Government inviolate and this in truth is not in that Oath nor is it necessary to make the Oath lawfull The Major therefore of this Oath-impugners Syllogisme I deny in that first part of it viz. It must be conditionall not absolute To make good my deniall first I will ananswer what he saith to prove it Secondly bring in my reasons against it and leave the Reader to judge betwixt us 1. All that he saith for proof of that assertion is this It is a-against the ground and reason of the Primitive institution of Government which is the good of the Subject that there should be any Oath to bind him absolutely whether the Prince rule for the Subjects good or not This were something if it were proved but the Reader is left either to take it upon his word or to remain unsatisfied both of it and the conclusion which depends upon it if he like to do neither let him try whether I can satisfie him to the contrary 1. The Parliament that enacted this Oath and all subsequent Parliaments who were intrusted with and most able in all probability to judge what would be for the Subjects good and who without all controversie were more sufficient and competent Judges thereof then this man have adjudged it not against but for the Subjects good 2. It hath consisted with the publike good yea contributed to it or els the Papists would not have so opposed it from the time it was first set forth untill now in impartiall mens judgements and no complaint hath been at all heard against it from the Kingdome nor scarcely if at all from particular men till within these few dayes what the suppressing of it on the other hand will tend to a little time may fully enough manifest 3. A thing may be said to be against the peoples good in two very far different senses 1. Either in it self of its own nature or simply considered of this sort are injustice impunity of offences sedition conspiracy hostile invasion and the like such things are in their own nature opposed to the publike good 2. Or accidentally and contingently thus any thing almost that falls under a politicall consideration and comes under the deliberation of the Law-givers though lawfull in it self and for the present probably yea or necessarily good for a Common-wealth may prove in the event somewhat incommodious and hurtfull There is a goodnesse of the end which is one and the same in all States and Governments viz. the happinesse of the Community and this is intended not deliberated on or chosen by the Law-givers * Ac deliberamus quidem non de finibus sed de tis quae referuntur ad sines Aristot Eth. l. 3. c. 3. And there is a goodnesse of the means tending to that end and this is variable in relation to times and people that may be good in the nature of a means for one people or time that is not so for another † Est enim genus hominum natura varie comparatum atque affectum aliud servile aliud colendis regibus accommodatum aliud Democraticum populare atque horum generum suum cuique est ac distinctum commodum Aristot Polit. l. 3. c 12. num 112. Itaque manifestum est ejusdem disciplinae esse considerare non solum quae sit qualis optima Respublica cujus status si nulla vis obstiterit maximè desideretur optetur sed etiàm quae cuique congrua consontanca est permulti enim optimam consequi nequeunt quare neque Legislator neque is qui verè civilis habeatur ignorare debet quae respub tam absolutè perfecta sit tum pro statu rerum praesentium maximè laudanda tum denique quae pro conditione aliqua non sit improbanda Idem lib. 4. cap. 1 num 2. Itaque cognoscendae erant rerum publicarum species ac differentiae quot modis inter se commisceantur cumque hac eadem prudentia optimarum legum scientia unicuique Reipub. convenientium conjurgenda est ad respublicas enim leges sunt accomodauda non autem ad leges res ipsa publicae Idem eodem Num. 6.27 It is the means and its goodnesse which falls under the consultation of the Legislators and because of the uncertainty thereof they are occasioned often to change their advisements and Lawes But by reason that in things which approach neer the foundation or do constitute it changes are very perillous in a State and in those things it is better to bear an inconveniency then run the hazard of an innovation therefore it hath been the honest and necessary wisdome of most States to settle them by a firmer Sanction then they use in other things and to ordaine a kind of immutability in them and consequently to ratifie them by Oaths fore-seeing that no inconvenience in the Constitution of a Government in it self lawfull and eligible can match the mischief of an alteration and

therefore that the uncertaine danger of that is rather to be chosen then the inevitable miseries of this Such things as may by reason of their changeable nature prove in the issue somewhat disadvantagious may yet if for the present good and probably hopefull so to continue be sworne to absolutely as in voluntary Promises Leagues and Contracts both publike and private among all Nations hath been the practise and by good Scripture-presidents it is justified * Genes 47.31 Exod. 13.19 Iosh 9.15.14.9 Iudg. 21.5.18.15.12.13 1 Sam. 14.24.19.6.20.12.17 1 King 1.13.29 2 Sam. 29.23 and the reason is because if any future prejudice do redound it can be the obligation of the Oath remaining at the worst but in outward incommodity the which is compensated by the avoiding of a greater evill which the leaving of the matter free and unsecured would more certainly breed and bring To apply all this to the case in hand If any Impeachment of the Subjects good can be supposed to result out of his swearing to his Prince absolutely whether he rule well or no it is but accidentall and such as it is it is overballanced with a greater mischief which would accrue by leaving the Subjects uningaged for the shunning of which the lesser evill to wit the being bound to a King though he should prove a bad Governour is to be chosen for that in comparison of a greater evill hath the consideration of good and is so eligible It is a lesse evill for a people to be bound to a Prince that possibly may prove bad then to be so loose as to be at the liberty to cast him off when they shall judge him to rule ill that is when they please the former doth not so neerly and probably tend to the Subjects hurt as doth the latter For first the Prince may prove just and vertuous Secondly the Subject is only bound by his Allegiance to legall obedience which obedience be the Prince never so bad can do the people no harme Thirdly in his lawlesse Acts there may be a remedy as the punishment or resistance of his bad instruments by the Parliament without whom though he may will unjust things yet he cannot execute them and yet his Government be continued Fourthly and suppose the case that there be no remedy as when he hath got a party stronger then can be resisted or subjected to punishment then to cast off his power and depose him suppose it lawfull to do will be no relief his strength will command subjection Fiftly the miscarriages of a Prince ordinarily unlesse it come to publike contestation wherein the Subjects sworne and unsworne if their cause be just and the Parliament authorize their standing up are in the same capacity of resistence extend but to the detriment of some particular persons rarely doth any Nero-like seek the destruction of the whole But on the other hand set the people free to shake off the reines of their present Government when they shall think it unequall and first you destroy the nature of Government as will afterwards be shewed 2. You expose the people to an immediate losse of the very use and injoyment of any Government the power of mobility and change being sure to invite all ill disposed persons immediately to put that power in ure and hurrie all if they may prevaile into confusion In short a bad Government is better then none it is more tolerable for a people that one or a few then that every man do that which is right in his owne eyes To be bound to Allegiance may lay the people open to the former to be loose will precipitate them into the later The former inconvenience cannot be so universally extensive speedily destructive and remedilesse or unresistible as the later 2. The later thing I premised is to give my Reasons for the contradictory to his major Proposition in that first part It must be conditionall not absolute Against which I say the Oath of Allegiance may be absolute or unconditionall in the sense before given and for this Assertion I render these Reasons 1. Were there no Oath the limited obedience which is due to Princes and Magistrates is due to them absolutely that is whether they rule well or no and that which is absolutely due may be absolutely sworne the former Proposition I ground thus 1. The Precept of obedience to Civill Governors is without any condition or reserve of a disingagement of the Subject in case of the Governours miscarriage read the fifth Commandement and those other Injunctions Rom. 13.1.2 c. Tit. 3.1 1. Pet. 2.13 c. 2. God commands his people to be subject to Heathen Princes and the most absolute and oppressive tyrants that likely ever have been Ier. 27.12 Mat. 22.21 1 Pet. 2.13 I speak not here of Tyrants in regard of Title or Right that is Usurpers but of Tyrants whose title is just but their Government unjust and oppressive 3. Servants are to be subjects to their Masters not only that are good and gentle but those that are froward that do them wrong and from whom they suffer for doing well 1 Pet. 2.18 19 20. and by analogy Subjects are tyed in the same terms to their Governours 4. David would not stretch out his hand against Saul upon this ground for that he was his Master the King of Israel and the Lords Anointed though he was then in actuall violent and unjust pursuit his life 1 Sam. 24.5 c. 26.9 c. 5. Otherwise you leave no place for passive obedience to pray for patience towards Magistrates in case of their wrong doing your innocency which yet is generally acknowledged to be a duty * Ames medulla Theol. l. 1. c. 17. p. 57. Vrsin Catech. pa. 3. qu. 104. 6. Els you dissolve all Magistracy it will be impossible in mans corrupt estate to retain or continue any in as much as no man or men can in the vast multitude and difficulty of magistraticall affairs avoid offending every day 2 Sam. 23.3 5. 7. The Doctrine of Orthodox Protestant Divines generally is that obedience is due in lawful things to the most degenerate oppressing and tyrannicall Princes * Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 20. S. 24 25. c. P. Martyr loc C. clas 4. C. 2. S. 12. 18. 19. Alsted Theol. case 17. Reg. 8. Mr. Perkins cases of Gonsc l. 3. c. 6. s 1. Bucan Instit Theol. loc 49. quaest 21. Synops puc Theol. disp 50. Thes 18.27 Scharp symphon Epoch 5. Quaest. 44. 45. 2. VVe find Oaths of Allegiance in Scripture sworn to Princes without any conditions inserted Judg. 11.9 10. 2 Kings 11.4 2 Chron. 36.13 Ezek. 17.13 Nehem. 10.29 their Oath was to observe all the Commandements of the Lord whereof the fifth Commandement with application to their present and future Magistrates was one 3. It is a thing within our power to settle our allegiance absolutely as well as it is within a mans power to dispose of himself to